A "gotcha" argument for Satan
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-05-2015, 09:31 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(13-05-2015 01:34 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(13-05-2015 10:56 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Here we go:

Genesis 10:10-11:
10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city

So let's go over the list of cities:

Babel/Babylon founded in 1894 BC

Erech built/settled around 5000 BC, one myth has Gilgamesh as the founder.

Ninevah settled around 6000 BC and notable prominence in 3000 BC


Accad founded/settled around 2350-2050 BC


Calneh -unknown

Resen -unknown


I left verse 11 in there because it references Asshur, the son of Shem and cousin of Nimrod, he would've obviously been a contemporary of Nimrod and this helps specify dates and timelines based on two contemporaries.

Now let's go through the cities that Asshur founded:

Ninevah founded around 6000 BC

Rehoboth -unknown

Calah - founded in 1263-1234 BC by Shalmaneser I


So here we have date ranges for these cities of 6000 BC -1234 BC, a range of 4766 years! This is the archeology that you claim doesn't refute the bible.

I guess I'm confused, the bible says certain people founded these cities (they didn't) and then it gives impossible date ranges. Unless you would like to assert Nimrod lived around 4800 years? I suppose that would help resolve this craziness, sure, go right ahead and do that Q.

Perhaps these convoluted dates need to be resolved before even considering the Babel myth to be real. You do convoluted extremely well Q, so I leave it in your capable hands.

It would be helpful to mention this too, the J source wrote the Tower of Babel myth as well as large parts of Genesis chapter 2-10, the P source intersperses their material with the J source with a few contributions from the redactor "R" source.

The creation myth, the flood myth and the Tower of Babel myth were mostly done by J with P parroting J, including the ridiculous sophistry of the Nephilim. They also team up to create the myth of Moses, this dynamic duo prance about throughout the Old Testament throwing one tall-tale after another into the pages of these books.


If J is such a terrible source for truth, creating ridiculous myths and falsehoods that are simply parroted by P, then what does that say about the bible and the god concept that they are creating?

[Image: BSBR010402900L.jpg]

I've responded to JEDP theory elsewhere at this forum. One, you have no documents anywhere in or outside the Bible that validate "J" or "P". I'm more than aware of the textual stylistic differences, and also that much of the Bible is written in chiastic form. There are all kinds of marks of gematria, usage of the name of God, etc. that show chiastic and many other patterns.

For a personal analogy, sometimes I'll pray to Jesus and other times to the Father in Jesus's name. That doesn't mean my prayers were authored and interpolated by two different sources.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2015, 09:45 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(14-05-2015 09:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Carbon dating is fraught with issues. I can accept, for example, that Akkad, which is mentioned in cuneiform tablets, is the biblical Akkad archaeologists found, but the dating is specious. The one city that you mentioned in "modern" history is dated close to what date?

Please explain the issues with which ¹⁴C dating is fraught.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2015, 09:45 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(14-05-2015 09:31 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  For a personal analogy, sometimes I'll pray to Jesus and other times to the Father in Jesus's name. That doesn't mean my prayers were authored and interpolated by two different sources.

Of course there are no two different sources, it is all in one person's imagination, in the Q's cranium. When will adults come to realize that they cannot have a personal relationship with the dead or nonexistent? It is 2015 and we are well into the information age - grow up and think like a rational adult already.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Timber1025's post
14-05-2015, 03:07 PM (This post was last modified: 14-05-2015 05:04 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(14-05-2015 09:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-05-2015 10:56 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Here we go:

Genesis 10:10-11:
10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city

So let's go over the list of cities:

Babel/Babylon founded in 1894 BC

Erech built/settled around 5000 BC, one myth has Gilgamesh as the founder.

Ninevah settled around 6000 BC and notable prominence in 3000 BC


Accad founded/settled around 2350-2050 BC


Calneh -unknown

Resen -unknown


I left verse 11 in there because it references Asshur, the son of Shem and cousin of Nimrod, he would've obviously been a contemporary of Nimrod and this helps specify dates and timelines based on two contemporaries.

Now let's go through the cities that Asshur founded:

Ninevah founded around 6000 BC

Rehoboth -unknown

Calah - founded in 1263-1234 BC by Shalmaneser I


So here we have date ranges for these cities of 6000 BC -1234 BC, a range of 4766 years! This is the archeology that you claim doesn't refute the bible.

I guess I'm confused, the bible says certain people founded these cities (they didn't) and then it gives impossible date ranges. Unless you would like to assert Nimrod lived around 4800 years? I suppose that would help resolve this craziness, sure, go right ahead and do that Q.

Perhaps these convoluted dates need to be resolved before even considering the Babel myth to be real. You do convoluted extremely well Q, so I leave it in your capable hands.

Please actually read my posts before responding. I had just prior written:

Quote:We both know prehistory can only be determined by carbon dating, since we don't have written documents before 3000 BCE. Things like carved bones and etc. are subject to C14 dating.

Carbon dating is fraught with issues. I can accept, for example, that Akkad, which is mentioned in cuneiform tablets, is the biblical Akkad archaeologists found, but the dating is specious. The one city that you mentioned in "modern" history is dated close to what date?

Quote:I think the Flood was maybe 3000 BCE or so, give or take, the genealogies can only be used with certainty if you know when Abraham and etc. walked the Earth

You are helping me to make my case.

Carbon dating is very accurate, the burden of proof is upon you to prove otherwise.

It is not the only method they have for dating artifacts, thermoluminescence is a highly accurate method as well.

There is no evidence Abraham existed, the burden of proof is upon you to prove biblical myths. How does Nimrod have any association with Abraham? He allegedly existed before Abraham. If anything, Abraham would be tied to Nimrod's timeline.

I don't care if Abraham or Nimrod even existed, I focused on the biblical claims that tied their existence to KNOWN cities. The mythical characters become absurd when given a REAL timeline based off of archeological evidence.

I have already entertained biblical myth enough to highlight it's absurdity.

When the bible makes specious claims about known cities in antiquity it can be compared with actual archeological evidence, the bible fails miserably, as I have shown.

Now all you can do is whine about "questionable" carbon dating. Yeah, not surprising. Drinking Beverage

This is the issue you have with Ussher's chronology of 6000 years for the creation of earth. All Ussher did was align genealogies to known historical figures and events and you get chronological absurdity, you get young-Earth creationism.

Ussher's timeline analysis is quite thorough, he actually did impressive work, but it made the bible look absurd, but I think this lends credence to his work, he merely did his best to link biblical history to actual history.

I don't blame you for being uncomfortable with the timeline of Ussher, it makes the bible become absurd, difficult to believe. All Ussher did was give biblical myth chronological reality tied to real-world events, the bible became absurd by default.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
15-05-2015, 01:14 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(14-05-2015 09:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-05-2015 09:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Carbon dating is fraught with issues. I can accept, for example, that Akkad, which is mentioned in cuneiform tablets, is the biblical Akkad archaeologists found, but the dating is specious. The one city that you mentioned in "modern" history is dated close to what date?

Please explain the issues with which ¹⁴C dating is fraught.

Off the top of my head, I can cite some of the issues, I'm not sure you really want to sit through my attempts to "explain" them to you if don't already know them:

* C14 dating is presumed accurate to circa 50,000 BP (we don't know because before circa 5,000 BP we're in pre-history and there are no documents to correlate our date findings with C14). And no, you can't tell me certain documents exist before that time without using carbon dating itself or other non-documentary methods, so please don't make a circular argument.

* C14 dating fluctuates with changes in the atmosphere. Nuclear testing is known to have affected C14 dating. Assumptions must be made regarding pre-history such as levels of volcanism, ozone changes, magnetic field and solar changes. All present assumptions are -- sorry to drag this out again -- uniform views to make the dating "work".

* Fossils including dinosaur fossils are too old to be subject to C14 dating because there should be zero C14 present in fossils formed from organic life older than 100,000 years. Many samples have been done on dinosaur and other ancient fossils, however, using C14 tests and discovering C14 present, challenging classic perceptions of the ancient world. Your only out is to say that the sampling in all such cases was contaminated or the scientists made mistakes or even falsified the results, etc.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2015, 01:18 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
Why am I not surprised this conversation went from Satan to carbon dating? It's like these debates are taking place on railway tracks, making stops at the same stations each time.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tartarus Sauce's post
15-05-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(15-05-2015 01:18 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Why am I not surprised this conversation went from Satan to carbon dating? It's like these debates are taking place on railway tracks, making stops at the same stations each time.

Makes perfect sense to me. Carbon dating is after all a Satanic ritual.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
15-05-2015, 04:21 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(15-05-2015 01:14 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(14-05-2015 09:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  Please explain the issues with which ¹⁴C dating is fraught.

Off the top of my head, I can cite some of the issues, I'm not sure you really want to sit through my attempts to "explain" them to you if don't already know them:

* C14 dating is presumed accurate to circa 50,000 BP (we don't know because before circa 5,000 BP we're in pre-history and there are no documents to correlate our date findings with C14). And no, you can't tell me certain documents exist before that time without using carbon dating itself or other non-documentary methods, so please don't make a circular argument.

* C14 dating fluctuates with changes in the atmosphere. Nuclear testing is known to have affected C14 dating. Assumptions must be made regarding pre-history such as levels of volcanism, ozone changes, magnetic field and solar changes. All present assumptions are -- sorry to drag this out again -- uniform views to make the dating "work".

* Fossils including dinosaur fossils are too old to be subject to C14 dating because there should be zero C14 present in fossils formed from organic life older than 100,000 years. Many samples have been done on dinosaur and other ancient fossils, however, using C14 tests and discovering C14 present, challenging classic perceptions of the ancient world. Your only out is to say that the sampling in all such cases was contaminated or the scientists made mistakes or even falsified the results, etc.

If you researched this on actual scientific sites instead of creationist ones, you'd know how the calibrations and corrections are made.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-05-2015, 03:49 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
The tower myth might be more ridiculous than the flood myth. To argue for either is the act of a fool.

A Christians best and only argument left is God's non-falsifiability. They put him in that realm. It's all that's left. So God got butthurt about a tower but had no problem with us leaving our atmosphere. Well of course not because at this point God had moved from the clouds to somewhere we couldn't look.

I'm mean seriously people! Q and his ilk are cowards and in need of a large dose of "grow the fuck up". Go hold hands with your fellow mental midgets and let the adults alone. And yes that was Santa who drank half the glass of milk and took bites off the cookies you fucking dope.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
16-05-2015, 06:16 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(16-05-2015 03:49 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  The tower myth might be more ridiculous than the flood myth.

If god deliberately created multiple languages in order to prevent people from cooperating, why isn't it a sin for a Christian to learn a second language? He's acting against god's explicit plan, isn't he? Or is that covered by the "that's the OLD testament" dodge and does that mean that god changed his plan?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: